| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| McDougall |
Feminism Changing ReligionsDateline: St. Louis, USABy: David Usher From: Men’s New Daily Via: The Honor Network Feminism Changing Religions Priority News Exchange Program News Item (PNEP)
For full story click: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/...n-talve-i%e2%80%99m-a-priest-now/ |
||||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
This has been going on for forty years. Where have you been?
Anyway, there is considerable evidence that prehistoric religions were based around a central female deity, usually based on Mother Earth. |
||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
Religion is all bunk anyway, so who cares? | ||||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
Most of it is, but how can you be certain all of it is? | ||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
OK, all religions consider all other religions to be bunk. Each religion considers itself to be the one true religion. It follows that the majority of the world's population would consider any given religion to be bunk.
So which is the more rational and consistent position, that all religion is bunk or that all religion except for the one I happen to believe in is bunk? On the balance of probabilities I'd say all religion is bunk is the rational position. |
||||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
"all religions consider all other religions to be bunk."
Not necessarily, Japan, China and Korea, people are often members of several different religions. "I'd say all religion is bunk is the rational position." It's not rational since it ignores that the fact that even religion has some rationalism within it. It is in fact an emotional backlash against religion, rather than a rational analysis of the whole. |
||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
True. Exclusivity in religion (and nationality) is a product of monotheism.
Yes. |
||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
religion has some rationalism within it... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... | ||||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
Point proven. Not a rational response at all. This is an emotional, not a rational response by yourself. |
||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
Only because the original assertion is so ludicrous. If you really want to debate it I'll be happy to take you on, but don't start with stuff like religion has some rationalism within it without providing some basis for the statement. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Agreed. Damn silly to boot. |
||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
So there you have it, Radge. Aventinian agrees with you; where does that leave your case? | ||||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
The trouble is that happiness, and humour, are not rational, because they are actually emotions, not logic. If you wish to be a logician, you can at least work that one out for yourself. Tell me, do you think it's logical not to look after poor people, or not fight to ban slavery? |
||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
In this case I agree with Radge too. |
||||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
And, I'm not religious at all myself. In fact, I'm pretty anti-religion, but I'm not blinkered enough to see that there is some reason within religion(s) - not all of them, but the major ones anyway. | ||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
I am not religious in any way either. I'm not anti-religious as such, though I am firmly anti-clerical.
Religion is a crucially important defining element of human culture. |
||||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
I agree with everything you said there... I think there is a slight hypocrisy over the phrase "organised religion" these days, as many people leave a traditional one, usually a church, for a new fangled religion, which is certainly organised. If you flit from Roman Catholicism/Presbyterianism to Wicca/New Age, you're still going into something which has organisation, sublimated rules and unspoken agreement. The amount of times I've met New Agers or even "Free Thinkers" who spout more or less the same line, but claim that they've come up with it themselves. They're unwilling to acknowledge their debt, unconscious or otherwise, to other people's thought. Organised religion is right in one respect... many people will come to similar conclusions - but not entirely under their own steam. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
I'm sure a logical case could be made (e.g. not looking after poor people forces them to fend for themselves and thus ultimately benefits them more that coddling them does) but that isn't the point. Looking after the poor, or banning slavery, or doing unto others as you would have them do unto you are aspects of humanity, not of religion. Religions always seem adept at taking the good points of others and claiming them for their own. (I suppose that is a rational thing to do if you wish to raise your own status so, in turn, I suppose I will have to concede that there is some rational element of religion. Good grief!) |
||||||||||||||||||
| doodells |
"It's just you and God, there's no middleman"
Ian Brown He claims to have tried lots of various religions but ended up hating any attempts to organise religion. He said he doesn't need someone else to come between him and the 'thing that is out there'. |
||||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
I'm afraid to break this to you, but while they are aspects of humanity, they are also features of some forms of religious expression as well. "Religions always seem adept at taking the good points of others and claiming them for their own." So, did Wilberforce just "take the good points of others"? And a religion does, isn't it better for it? |
||||||||||||||||||
| mairead |
I gave up believing in religions many long years ago, but hey, whatever turns you on is my motto.
Religions of all denominations have been the cause of practically every war on the planet since man first walked upon it, imposing his own beliefs on others. It is still the cause of most wars and troubles today |
||||||||||||||||||
| McDougall |
I'm agnostic, but to look at what atheists have done in Russia, China etc does not allow you the moral high ground. Of course you will say, "Not in my name", but so would a lot of Christians say of your efforts to connect them to evil acts.
The idea that science grew up in oppostion to religion is not at all true either, for so many scientists were Christian men and made their efforts in the name of God. Humanism has a large religious following too, so I fail to see black and white here only grey. Feminism is all about the goddess and mysticism, and the same people who poo-poo religious people often bow down to the latest attention whore in the media. It's a funny old word! |
||||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
Another blanket statement. 
"All denominations" - erm, you know that some denominations have always provided conscientious objectors? I'm not a great fan of the Jehovah's Witnesses, but they were slaughtered because they wouldn't go to war with Hitler. "It is still the cause of most wars and troubles today" Most modern wars are about money. In fact, they've been about greed through most of history. Religion has often been used as a rabble rouser AFTER the war has been planned. "hey, whatever turns you on is my motto." This definitely falls into the category of what I was saying earlier:
I've heard this motto before. It sounds cute, but you've picked it up from elsewhere. It also doesn't stand up to examination, as some people are "turned on" by things which are harmful to other people. My neighbours get "turned on" by karaoke at four on a weekday morning. |
||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Wars are caused by the aggressive assertion of collective identity. Religion is one form this can take, but there are others. The modern vapid and rootless substitute religion called 'Nationalism' being the most obvious example. |
||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
So all that stuff about women achieving equality of status is really just a front for goddess worship is it? Hmm.
That's very true. |
||||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
"Wars are caused by the aggressive assertion of collective identity."
Can be, but they are usually started and directed by a handful of people. WWI certainly was. "The modern vapid and rootless substitute religion called 'Nationalism' being the most obvious example." Politics of various kinds can fill this void. But nationalism is probably less rootless than many religions. |
||||||||||||||||||
| McDougall |
Almost all the women I have met in my life want the best of chivalry and equality. If you bring up any ideas of equality (they don't like) they go chivalry on you, and if you bring up ideas of chivalry (that they should keep to remain lady-like) they go equality on you. You may wish to worship this flipping back and forth when they want the best of both worlds, but you shouldn't kid yourself that it isn't a kind of worshipping. When asked to give reasons why a man should do this we get very much into romatic mysticsm and how she is so special. This is the modern form of bowing at the feet of the Cybele goddess. Chivalry & equality can't go together. Manginas have funny rationalizations that way. Now you may have a real trooper for a wife (wants equality across the board), but I find most of those who boast equality pay for bigger gifts, must take out the garbage at night in the dangerous alleyway, must talk to princess and listen to her feelings much more than they would care to etc. So their equality is on her terms and has her choice of chivalry all over the place, and that means men giving women something that is not returned in equal portion, risk and honor. Women are great on talk so if you care to argue this please give deeds that show equality from a woman and not her words or pie in the sky utopian visions. I'm happily married by the way, so shaming language will have no affect on my stance. |
||||||||||||||||||
| mairead |
I take the point about chivalry and equality and have to reluctantly agree that women do, to an extent, play both cards to suit.
This woman is not all gone on equality though, I assure you. Physiologically, women can never equal men. Men, having more muscles than women, are more powerful for a start, although women can have the same levels of intelligence. I also believe that there are some jobs best done by men. If I am trapped high up in a burning building, I sure wouldn't want a five foot 1 inch female trying to carry me to safety. The only equality I believe in is wages wise. If a woman is doing the same job then she should have the same rate of pay, but, as I say, there are some jobs men are more able to do. As far as chivalry goes, there's not a lot of that around anyway. |
||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
I think you're going to the wrong bars.
I'll admit I have very little idea what you're talking about. No person, of either gender, has ever had a conversation of this sort with me. Does it happen to you a lot?
Nonsense. Equality is the possession of equal legal rights. Chivalry is a mediaeval literary aspiration.
I get the impression that you're not all that happy about something a woman has done to you. If making you take out the rubbish is the worst offence you're getting off pretty lightly. I have to wash the dishes nearly every day. Can you believe that?
Is your phone bill rocketing too? She's been exchanging receipes again!
Equality does not come from 'a woman'. It comes from the law. What any individual woman does is irrelevant. (Unless you happen to be on the receiving end of another handbagging that is.)
It takes two to be happily married. |
||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
The only equality that exists is equality before the law. |
||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
I was reminded of this rapier-sharp flash of logic today when reading an article by Hilary Mantel in the new LRB:
She must have been spending some time on this forum. |
||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
I'm sorry to have to tell you this; the existence of junk science doesn't make religion any more believable or rational or any less dangerous. | ||||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
Trouble is, that it doesn't exist. At least not in the UK. The Royals are pretty immune from having many of their affairs probed, e.g. the Duchy of Cornwall, and you can be even more equal if you can afford a good lawyer. |
||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
It doesn't exist anywhere as an absolute, though it can be approximated. It is an ideal worth pursuing. |
||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
You're kidding? 
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
If that's your attitude, what was the point of your earlier post? | ||||||||||||||||||
| McDougall |
Are you married? You seem to feel you know what my wife feels about me? You really shouldn't argue with a crystal ball for it weakens your other logical arguments.
Don't go to bars or discos, is that where I'd find you with your disco crystal ball, horoscope tables or tarot cards, or are you ruled by your past life as Cleopatra?
For my part I get the impression that you're not all that happy with men, for women are half the problem of this world and should get their equal share of responsibilty. Does your equality before the law include shared parenting, or men having an equal ability to gain custody? Or does your sense of chivalry come into play and include women beinging better at bring up kids, which means no equality before the law and thus a red herring to pursue other issues of socialism under the common egalitarian slogan. Me thinks your misandry slip is showing! As for my wife you would get an earful on feminism, so you best give up your crystal ball and and get your other ones back. Here is your stick back. 
|
||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Yes, not that is makes any difference.
I'd be willing to bet that I know how any balanced person would feel about you. You can decide for yourself if that applies to your wife or not.
Hey! How did you know I was Cleopatra?
I am no more nor less happy with someone because of their gender. I don't find it really matters that much. Personality and character are much better things to go on. As is the absence of lunatic obsessions.
In your funny little world women seem to be the whole problem.
Equality before the law has little bearing on either of these issues. As far as I can tell from the diagrams I've seen, all parenting is shared.
Chivalry is a set of mediaeval literary conventions. God alone knows what you mean by it.
Women being better than men at bringing up kids has nothing to do with equality before the law, any more than your being better than golf than me does, or my being better at playing the piano than you does.
I despise socialism. I feel sorry for you. And sorrier for your wife, crystal ball or no. |
||||||||||||||||||